Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

I interpret this to mean that you haven't been given evidence. Is that right?If so, then why do you say this? We either provide you with evidence or we don't... Based on many discussions with YECs, I'm pretty certain that they have a different idea of what evidence is. But photographs are evidence. Websites are evidence. Quotes from experts are evidence. Tables of numbers are evidence. Schematic diagrams from observers are evidence. Opinions of professionals are evidence. Logical deduction is evidence.Biblical quotes are not evidence. Preconceived notions are not evidence. Hearsay from uneducated YECs is not evidence. Quote mines are not evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence. Dreams are not evidence. Unsupported assertions are not evidence.Now, you can debate the quality of evidence, but casual dismissal and simple denial are not acceptable forms of debate. Faith, you have been given a large number of photographs. Almost every one of them you have just glibly dismissed until recently.How many photos do you need? Frankly, sometimes I think you disagree with some of our posts even when it isn't necessary. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

But the point is that if you accept that sediments can be deposited on a slope then there is no reason to deny that they can drape over a topographic high point like a boulder, a monadnock or a dropstone. But we have shown that it happens. We have even simplified the whole process by referring to dropstones where there are no outside forces of currents or faults or folding, just gravity.Once you start introducing currents, compaction, faults, heat, etc., anything can happen, whether you've got 'loose sediments', mud, or hard rock. It's all pretty much irrelevant. Basically you are saying that unconformities are tectonic, the sedimentary sequence from lower section to upper section are continuous and that sedimentary/erosional features above the unconformity are not possible. I have just been through scores of websites showing draped bedding. Are they all wrong? And why would the be wrong?Why do I not show them? Because I have already predicted your responses. There are hundreds of ways to make ad hoc claims about any one picture and I'm not going to play that game any more. The way you have controlled the narrative here, there will never be a photo that will satisfy you. There is no doubt that sediments can be deposited in an inclined orientation and that the slope can be controlled by pre-existing topography. Unfortunately, there are a number of ways that it can happen, and many of those ways are in the soft sediment state.The point is that we see it in the rocks. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Are you saying that you would have to trust heathen geologists in order to take their word for it? I guarantee you that, if McKee saw a monadnock uplifted by a fault, he would have depicted it.Let's cut to the chase here and have you provide evidence for your following positions (assuming I understand them):1. the Great Unconformity is tectonic in a significant way,
2. that tectonism occurred in the latest part of geological time
3. the sequences of rocks below and above the unconformity are
a continuous depositional sequence unbroken by erosion
4. The sedimentary structures above the unconformity are due to
some kind of tectonism and not related to sedimentationAs yet I have seen nothing in the way of evidence for any of these conjectures. And don't give us the old 'it looks like', or 'it's obvious', or 'anything else is silly' arguments.

Okay, one reference showing the reasoning behind sag folds (actually, I guess we should call them 'apparent folds').Now, can we scale this down to a dropstone? After all, the stone will not have the same compactability as the enclosing sediments... Here is the associated diagram: If someone wants elaboration, perhaps tomorrow. It's been a tiring day. The channel cut and fill deposit (third diagram) is very common in coal mines. I'll look for a picture.

So you ignored my new post. Why am I not surprised?

Then where is the evidence that the sagging is tectonic?But it's all moot anyway. You are still talking about sediments in a sedimentary environment, not rocks in a tectonic environment.Which is the whole point of this exercise: the Great Unconformity formed the base for sedimentation during Tapeats time.

Good, then you agree that they are sediments deposited on top of the unconformity.By the way, can you tell what direction the sediments were being transported from in these diagrams?

Argument by assertion. You make no support for your statement.

But you said they were soft. But if they were deposited on a slope then it is a sedimentary environment. I don't know of any other possibility.If the gneiss is 'intruded', I presume it would be along faults. Where are those faults? If those layers were 'formed', why weren't the layers above them 'formed' also? They should show some faults extending from the gneiss into the layers.Maybe you could explain your 'intruded' mechanism a little better.

Fine. Show us the mechanism for being 'pushed up'. Show us the faults or shears associated with this tectonic deformation.ABE: Oh, just to clarify, that would be 'evidence'. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Drag would suggest shearing. So, where is the evidence for shearing.But let's look at the schematics a little closer. Do you see in image 'g', that gravels are found adjacent to the Archean body? Gravels are usually found close to their source, so could it be that the Archean hill is the source of the gravels?Now look at image 'a'. See the dike that is cut off by the unconformity? Do you realize that, according to Steno, that means the dike is older than the unconformity? So, could it be that there was some igneous activity before the Cambrian Tapeats deposition? How does that comport with your scenario of only one igneous event at the end of the geological record. Of is Steno out to lunch on this one?Now on to image 'c'. do you see the little squiggly lines in the Archean rocks close to the unconformity? Do you see how they fan away from the high point of the 'hill'? do you think McKee just accidentally drew them that way? To a geologist this pattern indicates downhill 'creep' of layers that were once vertical. We see that in weathering of rocks on a hillside where there is plenty of water and soil development. It was one of Hutton's first observations of the rocks just below the soil of his farm.In image 'b', as PaulK has mentioned, there is an assymetric draping of sediments coming off the two Archean high points. Do you know what this means?Now, my points are that the drawings indicate a surficial environment for deposition of the Tapeats; and also that McKee put enough detail into the diagrams that I would be shocked to find out that he missed a bunch of faults that uplifted each one of these Archean high points.

I think it's pretty obvious that those cars were intruded into the snow...

That is what we would call soft sediment deformation.So, basically, no matter how it happened, you have a sedimentary environment with sands being deposited on an irregular surface. I don't care if it happened on a sloping surface, in cross beds, or as soft sediment deformation - it is sedimentary. Not tectonic. Makes no difference: they are soft sediments. They are not rocks until lithified. They are, however, strata. But without evidence, yes. For which you have not found any evidence, yet.

If sediments are being deposited, then it is a sedimentary environment. But there is no evidence for intrusion. To get the amount of relief shown in the McKee diagrams, a fault should be obvious. But in this case the deformation does not extend into the overlying rocks. Even in your 'deformed area' the bedding passes through with almost no offset.

Exactly correct. And this argument was predictable. On another thread, we spent a number of pages debating what part of the outcrop was in shadow and what part not...So tedious...

Ah, good.You are using the presence of drag folds as evidence that they are drag folds. Then you can provide evidence for shearing, right? Well, if that were the case, the it would show that the dike is younger than the unconformity, right? After all, you do understand Steno's principles, don't you? And, of course, you can do that? So, you think it happened during sometime while the Tapeats still consisted of soft sediments? And, of course you have some kind of evidence for the kinematics of that intrusion? Can you tell us which direction the older rocks were moving? What is 'embedded gravel'?And perhaps you can show us your evidence that it was emplaced by shearing?Edited by edge, : No reason given.